> > > OK Huang. I will have to make my own interpretation of your > > > nonexistent length, but here is my next criticism: here you state that > > > space may be bent by mixing your enlength (new word: quip of existent > > > nonexistent length), yet the meaning of bending space via the > > > construction is completely ignored here. To take this level of freedom > > > there is a large gap you will have to fill in, and the level of > > > interpretation that you surmise does not seem so straightforward as > > > you propose. I can't buy this as a serious analysis, particularly not > > > atop granting existence to nonexistent length. Still, I accept that > > > you are a complex thinker and have formed a thought process that you > > > are sticking with. To me the trouble is that the steps are too large. > > > I encourage you keep taking the freedoms you do, but also encourage > > > you to take a more critical view of your own work. > > > > - Tim > > > A fair criticism and you probably gave me more than most would dare. > > Well, I have a consideration: that a new correct theory may not have a > clean translation into ordinary language, so that even the person > carrying the theory may not have a clean expression for their theory. > So I am willing to consider that you could be that person, and am just > helping by challenging your translation. Still, we have to admit that > not everybodies theory can be this good, and likely most of us have > theories much less than perfect. Anyway, by the translation problem it > puts most of us in the same boat.
That is what Kant would have said. Language is insufficient to communicate or describe space. I think that Kant was almost correct, but I would say that the lexicon of ideas is more important than linguistic facility. And that assembling new ideas or explanations is extremely challenging regardless of how good your language skills are. Some of the ideas neccesary for this thing to work have never been assembled, and so imagination is the critical hurdle if one ever hopes to model anything using math or any other tool.
I think that somehow I got lucky and I can see a big picture emerging with lots of major linkages, but there are so many details I really dont have the first idea where to begin to fill in some of those details. I think that working on gravity makes the most sense, but Im literally baffled at the possible number of things I could attempt.
Yet, I still havent really digested a rigorous conceptualization of rectilinear motion using what I call "conjectural methods". I have a pretty clear idea how to write it down symbollically but to put that model into plain English or even comprehend it globally has been kicking my ass. That is the problem Ive been working on - simple rectilinear motion expressed in terms of "conjectural methods". If I have that one example I will consider that I have had a major success. But I dont have it yet.
> This also has a causative side effect on ordinary theories: they tend > to develop in small incremental steps, or else they may be declared > invalid. This can be regarded as a handicap of existing physics. It is > a valid concern, and we all should attempt to work from some basis > that is shared, otherwise you are out on your own, and attempts to > communicate will yield poor feedback. So you can either be > handicapped, or a complete freak. Then too, there are the monkeys in > the tree, who live a comfortable life and still find new fruit. > Whatever way you look at it, the subject is pretty interesting. >
The wierd thing is that even if I am right....that all of these "conjectural methods" are valid....the strange thing is that all of existing physics remains untouched because I'm not doing mathematics. Much would be added to the field of physics, but existing physics would remain unaltered.